Measuring damages in the law of obligations : the search for harmonised principles / Sirko Harder.
2010
K877 .H37 2010 (Map It)
Available at Cellar
Formats
| Format | |
|---|---|
| BibTeX | |
| MARCXML | |
| TextMARC | |
| MARC | |
| DublinCore | |
| EndNote | |
| NLM | |
| RefWorks | |
| RIS |
Items
Details
Author
Title
Measuring damages in the law of obligations : the search for harmonised principles / Sirko Harder.
Published
Oxford ; Portland, Or. : Hart Pub., 2010.
Call Number
K877 .H37 2010
ISBN
9781841138633 (hardback)
1841138630 (hardback)
1841138630 (hardback)
Description
[xxxix], 323 pages ; 25 cm
System Control No.
(OCoLC)607975177
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references (pages 307-317) and index.
Record Appears in
Table of Contents
Foreword
vii
Table of Cases
xv
Table of Statutes
xxxvii
Table of Statutory Instruments
xxxix
1.
Introduction
1
I.
The Law of Obligations
1
II.
The Law of Damages
3
III.
Desirability of a Harmonised Measure of Damages
7
IV.
Possibility of a Harmonised Measure of Damages
9
V.
The Methodology Adopted in this Book
12
Part 1: Remoteness of Damage
15
2.
The Present Remoteness Test in Tort
17
I.
Terminology
17
II.
The Foreseeability Criterion in Negligence
17
III.
Damage Versus Risk
20
IV.
Degree of Foresight Required
25
V.
The 'Thin Skull' Rule
27
VI.
The 'Scope of the Duty' Concept
30
VII.
Torts other than Negligence
34
3.
The Present Remoteness Test in Contract
37
I.
Hadley v Baxendale
37
II.
Victoria Laundry
38
III.
The Heron II
39
IV.
Parsons
40
V.
SAAMCO
41
VI.
Brown v KMR Services Ltd
42
VII.
Jackson v Royal Bank of Scotland plc
43
VIII.
The Achilleas
44
IX.
Conclusion
47
4.
A Uniform Remoteness Test throughout the Common Law
53
I.
Contract and Tort Compared
53
II.
Reforming both Contract and Tort
54
III.
Reforming Tort Only
56
IV.
Aligning Contract with Tort
57
A.
The Fairness Argument
57
B.
The Efficiency Argument
60
C.
Objections to the Efficiency Argument
63
i.
Prohibitive Costs
63
ii.
Monopoly Situations
63
iii.
Strategic Dilemma for Reliable Carriers
64
iv.
Possibility of Menu
65
D.
Preventing Unreasonable Reliance upon Performance
65
E.
Contractual Liability is Generally Strict
67
F.
Conclusion
68
5.
Remoteness of Damage in Equity
70
I.
Misapplication of Trust Property
70
II.
Breach of an Equitable Duty of Care and Skill
73
III.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
75
Part 2: Non-Pecuniary Loss
81
6.
Non-Pecuniary Loss in Tort
83
I.
Loss Resulting from Personal Injury
84
II.
Physical Inconvenience or Discomfort
85
III.
Loss of Reputation
85
IV.
Mental Distress
87
V.
Bereavement
89
7.
Non-Pecuniary Loss in Contract
90
I.
Overview of the Present Law
90
II.
The General Bar to Compensation
90
III.
The Exception for Personal Injury
93
IV.
The Exception for Physical Inconvenience
93
V.
The 'Object of the Contract' Exception
95
VI.
Loss of Reputation
100
VII.
Need for Reform
103
VIII.
Defensibility of the General Bar to Compensation
104
A.
Avoiding Punishment
104
B.
Avoiding Excessive Awards
105
C.
General Remoteness of Non-Pecuniary Loss
106
D.
Assumption of Risk
107
E.
Difficult Assessment
107
F.
Lower Cost of Contracting
109
G.
Avoiding a Flood of Claims
110
H.
Avoiding Bogus Claims
113
IX.
Way of Reform
114
8.
Non-Pecuniary Loss in Equity
117
I.
Breach of Confidence in Its Core Meaning
117
II.
Breach of Confidence in Its Extended Meaning ('Breach of Privacy')
119
III.
Other Equitable Wrongs
123
Part 3: Contributory Negligence
127
9.
Contributory Negligence in Tort
129
I.
The Position Apart From the1945 Act
129
II.
The Ambit of the 1945 Act
131
III.
Causation
135
IV.
The Claimant's Fault
137
V.
Damage
138
VI.
Apportionment
141
10.
Contributory Negligence in Contract
145
I.
The Position apart from the 1945 Act
145
II.
The Impact of the 1945 Act[—]Overview
146
III.
Breach of a Duty of Care Co-Extensive in Contract and Tort
148
IV.
Breach of a Purely Contractual Duty of Care
151
V.
Strict Contractual Liability[—]The Present Law
153
VI.
Need for Apportionment in Cases of Strict Liability
155
A.
Resorting to Causation Doctrine
156
B.
Resorting to Remoteness Doctrine
158
C.
Resorting to Mitigation Doctrine
159
VII.
Defensibility of Denying Apportionment in Cases of Strict Liability
162
A.
No Duty to Supervise the Defendant
162
B.
Distribution of Blame is Difficult
164
C.
Uncertainty
165
D.
Inequalities of Bargaining Power
166
VIII.
Way of Reform
167
11.
Contributory Negligence in Equity
169
Part 4: Gain-Based Relief
175
12.
The Present Law of 'Restitution for Wrongs'
177
I.
Terminology
177
II.
The Inclusion of Hypothetical-Fee Awards
179
III.
Equity
182
A.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
182
B.
Breach of Confidence Including Breach of Privacy
185
IV.
Tort
188
A.
Historical Development
188
B.
Wrongful Interference with Goods
190
C.
Trespass to Land
191
D.
Intellectual Property Wrongs
194
E.
Nuisance
197
F.
Deceit and Fraud
200
V.
Contract
203
A.
Hypothetical-Fee Award ('Wrotham Park Damages')
203
B.
Account of Profits ('Blake Damages')
206
13.
The Proper Scope of 'Restitution for Wrongs'
209
I.
Existing Theories
209
A.
Birks
210
B.
Edelman
210
C.
Friedmann
211
D.
Jackman
212
E.
Jaffey
212
F.
Tettenborn
213
G.
Weinrib
213
H.
Worthington
214
II.
The Significance of Exclusive Entitlements
215
III.
Exclusive Entitlements Erga Omnes
218
A.
Tangible and Intangible Property
219
B.
Bodily Integrity
222
C.
Reputation
223
D.
Informational Rights
224
IV.
Exclusive Entitlements Inter Partes
226
A.
Contractual Right to Have Property Transferred
227
i.
Land and Intangible Property
227
ii.
Specific Chattel
229
iii.
Generic Goods
231
B.
Contractual Right to Be Treated As the Owner of Certain Property
233
C.
Contractual Right to Someone Else's 'Labour Power'?
235
D.
Right to the Loyalty of One's Fiduciary
237
V.
Situations in Which 'Restitution for Wrongs' is Inappropriate
239
A.
Deceit
239
B.
Skimped Contractual Performance
240
VI.
Exclusive-Entitlement Theory and Present Law Compared
242
Part 5: Exemplary Damages
245
14.
The Present Law of Exemplary Damages
247
I.
Terminology
247
II.
Rookes v Barnard
248
III.
Abuse of Power by Civil Servants
250
A.
Conduct Required
250
B.
Status of the Defendant
252
C.
Criticism
253
IV.
Profit-Seeking Behaviour
254
A.
Fields of Application
255
B.
Criticism
256
V.
Statutory Authorisation
257
VI.
The 'Cause of Action' Test
259
VII.
Exemplary Damages in Contract
260
VIII.
Exemplary Damages in Equity
261
IX.
Need for Reform
263
15.
Objective of Exemplary Damages
264
I.
Penalising Reprehensible Behaviour
264
II.
Fostering Efficient Deterrence
265
A.
Correction for Undercompensation
265
B.
Correction for Underenforcement
267
C.
Correction for Court Errors
269
D.
Offsetting Illicit Benefits and Exceptional Costs
271
E.
Encouraging Negotiations about the Use of Rights
272
F.
Conclusion
272
16.
Defensibility of Confining Exemplary Damages to Tort
273
I.
Defensibility of Banning Exemplary Damages from Contract
273
A.
Theory of Efficient Breach
273
B.
Objections to the Theory of Efficient Breach
274
C.
Relevance of the Theory of Efficient Breach
276
D.
Inducement of Breach
277
E.
Cost of Contracting
277
F.
Crucial Differences between Contract and Tort
278
G.
Conclusion
280
II.
Defensibility of Banning Exemplary Damages from Equity
280
A.
Is Punishment a Traditional Objective of Equity?
281
B.
Should Exemplary Damages be Available in Equity?
282
17.
The Abolition or Retention of Exemplary Damages
286
I.
The Division between Civil Law and Criminal Law
286
A.
Attack on Exemplary Damages
287
B.
Defence of Exemplary Damages
288
C.
Conclusion
289
II.
Policy Arguments against Exemplary Damages
290
A.
Uncertainty as to Availability and Amount
290
B.
Ineffectiveness of Predictable Awards
291
C.
Incentive for Bogus Claims
291
III.
Policy Arguments in Favour of Exemplary Damages
291
A.
Appeasing the Victim
291
B.
Possibility of Vicarious Liability
292
IV.
Need for Exemplary Damages
295
A.
The Long-Standing Practice of Exemplary Awards
295
B.
The Law Commission's Ten Examples
297
C.
Comparative View
301
V.
Conclusion
301
18.
Conclusion
302
Bibliography
307
Index
319